[Printing-summit] [lsb-discuss] Printer/driver testing
till.kamppeter at gmail.com
Wed Aug 23 06:34:00 PDT 2006
Klaus Singvogel wrote:
> foomatic-rip is not mandatory for systems with PostScript printers
> (and a few others). Vendors, which want to build up a small distro,
> can only longer be LSB compliant, if they don't have foomatic-rip
> because of missing necessity.
> I don't think it's a mandatory requirement to have foomatic-rip in
> every distribution, only a "might have" or "should have".
My thought was that LSB is standardizing what the distros are
delivering. Every distro currently ships foomatic-rip. foomatic-rip is
also useful for PostScript printers, as it allows to use PPDs also in
non-CUPS environments. LSB does not only contain things which are needed
by EVERY user, but many things which are used by MANY users.
In addition, requiring foomatic-rip avoids that every LSB-compliant
driver package ships its own foomatic-rip.
> Reminds me to vote for a enhancement on foomatic-rip:
> "foomatic --version" or "foomatic-rip --help" should print out the
> current version. Then it could be better
> Till, main author of foomatic-rip, what do you think about adding this?
I think this is a good idea.
> Good idea.
> But please only with an open set, where hardware vendors can add their
> special papers (like size Din A00), and special options. But the most
> common ones should be reduced to a fix set.
Yes, requirement of standard option names should not forbid the support
for functions which are not covered by standard names. But having the
most common standardized improves the possibility for automated testing
More information about the Printing-summit